It seems plausible that this was at least one of its goals at some point in its tenure on accounts of how many racists there are in every sector (you don't have to comb tumblr too hard to find anecdotes describing how racism undermines feminism). But like the article points out, at best a negligible fraction of the people who are pushing this forward are actually interested in improving the health of any children or families, let alone those of color.

Sanger had some pretty uncomfortable views about eugenics and made some pretty horrible statements about race. But she also found common cause with the Urban League and NAACP and really did a lot to help minorities and the poor get access to birth control. (And birth control was her thing; she really wasn't big on abortions. She believed they should be legal but used only as a last resort.)

She believed everybody should have access to contraception. And she believed that family planning should be up to individuals rather than the state. She had some strong ideas about which subsets of the population should use it more than others, and misidentified certain demographic correlations as being causal. She said some pretty cringeworthy things and it's not hard to find them.

BUT:

If someone says "Planned Parenthood was founded by someone who wanted to kill black babies" (this is, verbatim, what an anti-choice friend said to me once), that's not true.

And even if it were, what the fuck difference does that make to what the organization's deeds and goals are today? Lots of companies have pretty dodgy histories that don't necessarily reflect what they're like today. (Does it count as Godwin's Law if I mention Volkswagen and Ford?)

Considering how well the crowd that already wasn't exactly primed to love this decision handles sudden change, I'm surprised how fast this went from "maybe there'll be a lady on the $10" to "black lady (and rights activist I guess is the best term) confirmed for $20."

The funny thing about Jackson being on the $20 is that he hated the idea of paper money so it's quite possible that his face on any bill is something that would have pissed him off immensely. There's an argument that it's fitting punishment.

Of course that doesn't really hold up because it's a bit too scholarly and obscure as a form of revenge, so it winds up just honouring him as intended by the treasury anyway. So fuck him, and just do away with his face.

I'd be kind of mad about him still being on one side of the $20. But it's not my money I guess.